Do you think the United States is imperial?

[TNF]

Yes, all developed first world economies are, in some fashion, imperialist powers.

[TNF]

Yes, all developed first world economies are, in some fashion, imperialist powers.

Lol at the idea of the Nordic nations or Switzerland acting imperialist.

Of course, they are imperialist in the way that they handle trade relations with lesser developed economies (pushing their products into those markets and declaring that protectionism, which was responsible for the development of every first world nation is bad and evil and must be combated and these nations should privatize their economies and open up trade so that their industries can be destroyed and replaced with foreign, i.e. European/American/Japanese/Chinese ones).

[TNF]

Much less imperial than we used to be.

This is not true at all. The American Empire is today far more powerful and far more influential than it has ever been, even with a rising China.

[TNF]

Yes, all developed first world economies are, in some fashion, imperialist powers.

Lol at the idea of the Nordic nations or Switzerland acting imperialist.

protectionism, which was responsible for the development of every first world nation

Citation needed.

Here's a good starting point, and I would also recommend Bad Samaritans by Chang as well as 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism.

[TNF]

Well, its certainly highly disputable that the development of the United Kingdom as an industrial power was due to protectionism (after all, the UK pursued broadly free trading policies throughout the mid and late 19th centuries and into the 20th). More to the point, whilst protectionism certainly was a factor in encouraging the development of western industrial powers throughout the 19th and into the 20th century, it could equally be argued that such development arose as a result of dirt cheap labour operating in largely unregulated markets (basically modern south-east Asia but on steroids), run by businessmen who were very lightly taxed and had considerable clout in government. Protectionism is merely one factor, and often one that actually harmed economic development, as was the case with the so-called 'Corn Laws' (which pushed up the price of food, meaning that factory owners had to pay their workers considerably more, thus to some extent retarding the development of British industry).

This is of course, economic, rather than 'social' development. But still for what its worth...

From the link I posted:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

Oh, I'm not denying that the British government (well, successive English and British governments) actively helped support and develop British trade and industry. Although I would say that plenty of government interventions were either ineffective, disastrous or ran contrary to the interests of business or landowning interests. An example of this was the anti-enclosure legislation adopted by successive Tudor governments, even though enclosure was a neccessary precursor to the agricultural revolution (which helped many a landowner and farmer enormously).

More to the point, I think the problem with such views as described in the above link is that they're essentially (I can't think of a better word) praising policies that are largely antithetical to their own, left wing, views. I mean, all of the interventions described above were designed to benefit either the crown (as with the development of woolen manufacturing, which was part of broader efforts by Henry VII to swell the coffers of the state), landowners (as with the corn laws) or businessmen (as in the case of much of that 18th century trading legislation). They were not put into practice in order to create a more equitable or socially just society. Moreover, I think it can be argued that countries like Great Britain benefited heavily from being the first to undergoe the agricultural revolution and then industrialise. This granted them enormous opportunities that simply aren't available to third world countries today, as other countries have already established a strong presence in international markets, the likes of which simply did not exist in the less globalised 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.

I'm not arguing that all intervention is a good thing, or that government always necessarily picks the right "winners" and "losers" in a given industrial context. History is littered with examples to the contrary, as you rightfully point out here. What I am arguing, on the contrary, is without these, and without generous state support for the development of infant industries, advanced industrial capitalism is impossible. We don't even have to look back at the United Kingdom, the United States, or Germany's development to understand this; we only have to look to the modern development of powers such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the People's Republic of China. The use of protectionist policy in these nations, compared to their non-use in relatively similar third-wold nations (and make no mistake, South Korea and Taiwan, as well as PRC were third-world nations at the time these policies were implemented; Japan had been reduced to paupery after the destruction of their industry after the Second World War) clearly marks the difference in their overall levels of development.

It's true that protectionist policies lead to the development of one sector of the economy or one strata of society before they do others. That's not really debated, even among those of us on the left. We understand this, and most of us (aside from perhaps anarchists, some left-libertarians, and third worldists) also understand that in order to create the equitable society that all of us would like to see, you must first develop the means of production to a point at which you can provide for that kind of equitable society. This is what Marx is talking about when he talks about the progressive nature of capitalism as compared to, say, the previous feudal society. Capitalism makes it possible to create real abundance for the first time. We know this is true because there are many examples of this: we produce enough food to feed 10 billion people, there are now (in the United States, anyway) as many as five vacant homes for every homeless person[/url], and I could go on and on. Hell, even Lenin and Trotsky (not my cup of tea, politically speaking) acknowledged this as much and argued that (at least in Lenin's case), Russia could not properly be a socialist society because it hadn't developed capitalism on a large enough scale.

Third world nations face a lot tougher set of conditions for development today than their predecessors did, that's true. And it will only become tougher as Chinese industry expands outward, as Indian industry expands outward, as Brazilian industry expands outward, etc. Opposing the policies of the IMF and the WTO are only stop-gap measures for most of these countries, and shouldn't be regarded as anything beyond that, at this point. The only way these nations are really going to develop is if you have a big-shake up in the major industrial powers (be it through a Third World War (which is very, very real possibility and will only increase as rising powers begin to confront the dominant position of the United States and it's European satellite), ecological devastation (we are seeing this daily and it will only increase as the effects of climate change throw a span in global capital's works the world over), or revolution (a socialist revolution in any of the major powers would be a step toward revolution in all of them, and would inevitably trickle-down to the third world in the form of new kinds of aid or trade relations that are impossible under capitalism) or these powers just go for it, tell the IMF and the WTO to stick their fingers up their ass and implement a full-out industrial policy. At this juncture that seems more likely than the former, but only time can tell how things are going to go in the 21st Century, and I'm increasingly hopeful that the revolution bit of the former is the way forward, rather than a Third World War or ecological catastrophe.

[TNF]

In a way, yes.  American imperialism is more about spreading American ideals.  Where we differ from the countries of the Imperial Age in the late 1800s/early 1900s is in our treatment of those populations where our influence is felt.  You can look at it in the worst way possible, and point to conflicts arising from American intervention and some of the disgusting policies of medical experimentation involving syphilis and other STD's in the mid-20th Century, but the fact if that many peoples have welcomed us with open arms, and there is NO DOUBT that the entirety of Western Europe has enormously benefited from the injection of American values.  

This is also patently untrue. Or do you think that we treated Native Americans with dignity as we made our way out west? How about our conquest of the Mexican territories during the Mexican War? We also shouldn't forget about the brutal race wars our nation has raged in the Pacific, from the brutal massacre that was the Philippine-American War to the exterminationist war against the Japanese during World War II. The idea that the United States is a kind of "kindler, gentler" imperialist power is nonsense. All imperialist powers recourse to violence as a means of maintaining the balance of power in their favor, be it physical or economic. This is the very definition of what empire is all about.

[TNF]

In a way, yes.  American imperialism is more about spreading American ideals.  Where we differ from the countries of the Imperial Age in the late 1800s/early 1900s is in our treatment of those populations where our influence is felt.  You can look at it in the worst way possible, and point to conflicts arising from American intervention and some of the disgusting policies of medical experimentation involving syphilis and other STD's in the mid-20th Century, but the fact if that many peoples have welcomed us with open arms, and there is NO DOUBT that the entirety of Western Europe has enormously benefited from the injection of American values.  

This is also patently untrue. Or do you think that we treated Native Americans with dignity as we made our way out west? How about our conquest of the Mexican territories during the Mexican War? We also shouldn't forget about the brutal race wars our nation has raged in the Pacific, from the brutal massacre that was the Philippine-American War to the exterminationist war against the Japanese during World War II. The idea that the United States is a kind of "kindler, gentler" imperialist power is nonsense. All imperialist powers recourse to violence as a means of maintaining the balance of power in their favor, be it physical or economic. This is the very definition of what empire is all about.

You think our treatment of the Iraqis was comparable to the European colonial power's treatment of African/Asian populations?  Abu Grahib prison was a HUGE scandal, and that only dealt with the humiliation of one prisoner. 

Frequent unannounced bombing raids across an entire region of the globe (and in many nations we aren't at war with) is pretty naked savagery, especially when it involves killing large numbers of innocent people, which our government does on a fairly regular basis in said bombing raids.